“From their [people with mental illness] point of view, the suffering is as great as a person dying of a physical illness,” [Humphrey] wrote in the announcement of his Tucson presentations. “And it probably is! They argue a terminal patient knows soon death will bring about the end of pain, whilst they are condemned to a lifetime of suffering. They report they have endured long hours of therapy and used mountains of prescribed medications. Still they would prefer death, they say.”

I’ve always said that if you accept the premise that it is morally permissible to aid in the dying of someone who is suffering unbearably with intractable pain and facing a terminal illness, why would you stop there? Suffering is suffering, right? Pain is subjective, and who are we to decide when pain has become unbearable.

So this kind of “mission creep” is a natural extension of the work of those who fight for legalized “aid in dying.”

It seems ironic that Humphrey is delivering his new expanded vision in Arizona, the place where the first Hemlock Chapter was started in 1980, and where the controversial Jana Van Voorhis case happened. In 2007, the suicide of a woman with a history of mental illness was allegedly assisted by the Final Exit Network.